LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Published on October 01, 2003.

FIT OR PRICE?

I read with great interest the article â€œThe Shape of
Things to Comeâ€? (August 2003). While I applaud the idea of
developing garments that fit a broader spectrum of consumers, I
don't know how it will play out in relation to several significant
trends in the apparel industry.

In my 20 years in the business, I have seen production minimums,
especially for garments made overseas, increase significantly.
Economies of scale enhance profit margins and many factories are
loath to expand into additional size ranges as this slows all
aspects of production. I have also seen patternmaking techniques
designed to fit the human body supplanted by techniques that
maximize fabric usage and ease of production, giving us garments
that fit no one properly. It will be interesting to see which trend
triumphs â€” fit or price. For now, I'm betting on price.
LUCINDA WEHRKAMPThe Territory Ahead
Santa Barbara, Calif.

GRIMM NEWS

I would like to comment on an article in the July-August 2003
issue entitled, â€œGood News, Bad News.â€? Your author,
Matthew Grimm, has overlooked some important facts about media
coverage of the second Gulf War in his analysis.

First, Mr. Grimm begins by calling the movie The Green
Berets a propaganda film meant to prove the â€œultimate
goodness of the United States' war in Vietnamâ€? to a skeptical
reporter. I remember another movie that came out two years later
(1970) and four years before we finally pulled out of Vietnam
called M.A.S.H. that is now considered by most everyone to
be a â€œpropagandaâ€? film disguised as a comedy. It, too,
had script assistance from the Pentagon, but took the opposite
position on the Vietnam War. Although set in Korea, it was actually
designed to prove to the American public the complete futility of
our involvement in Vietnam. And, for anyone who knows their
history, the two wars were almost identical in nature. Not to
mention, we had a 13-year follow-up prime-time series on television
to drive home the point. Point well taken.

Second, Mr. Grimm throws out some impressive statistics on the
spike in Web traffic to â€œalternativeâ€? news sources on
the Net such as the BBC, The Guardian and al-Jazeera by the
American public. This reminds me of what British Prime Minister
Benjamin Disraeli once said regarding the use of statistics:
â€œThere are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and
statistics.â€? Mr. Grimm calls these increases to other news
sites the biggest jumps among American audiences, which is true if
you're looking at percentages. I would be curious to know if these
jumps to foreign news outlets have remained constant after the war.
My guess is that's not the case. However to be fair, Mr. Grimm
points out that traditional media is declining, not because of
attitude, but because of the variety of news sources now available
on the Net.

Third, Mr. Grimm claims that Americans are being driven away
from American news sources by â€œthe sterile groupthink and
homogeneity of our own Big Media.â€? Obviously he hasn't
bothered to listen to the unending chorus of the Republican Party
and many others claiming the media has a liberal bias. Why does he
think the Fox News Network has become so popular if, as he asserts,
there is no audience for it?

His assessment of the coverage of this past war, is way off
base. This is the first time ever that reporters have been imbedded
with military units to report the war live and with less
interference from the Pentagon. Mr. Grimm should be ecstatic that
the American media had such access but instead, he dismisses this
unprecedented opportunity as â€œcheerleading;â€? a slap in
the face to most credible journalists, many of whom did some very
good work during the war.

Fourth, just because the second Gulf War wasn't like Vietnam
doesn't mean it was painted as a â€œglorious, wonderful
picture,â€? as Ms. Banfield claims. Yes, war is ugly, people
die violently and unjustly, but I think the media accurately
reported what was in Iraq and just because that doesn't match up to
Mr. Grimm's perception of what war should be like doesn't make it
any less accurate, sterile and/or manufactured. It's as if he
thinks a journalist's job is to find a government conspiracy in
every piece of work he or she does and if you don't you can't be
taken seriously. Of the five â€œgangbuster storiesâ€? he
cited as never having been covered by U.S. media, each sounds like
a government cover-up or conspiracy. That sounds like an episode
from the X Files, not good journalism.

And, is he really going to stand up and call all his peers
sellouts to the government? Doesn't he give them any credit at all?
America's market of ideas is alive and well and just because the
media no longer holds the same values and ideals as the Baby
Boomers, doesn't mean it amounts to â€œsterile
groupthink.â€? The only sterile groupthinkers are those who
haven't gotten past the legacy of Watergate, Vietnam and
Iran/Contra. I for one think it's time for that type of groupthink
to go.

The bottom line is this: American journalism is far more
credible than it has ever been and is held accountable by a far
better educated and highly suspicious, public. It's not perfect and
there are those who are more interested in making money than
reporting the truth, but it is, for the most part, solid.

I was taught that good journalism was about being accurate, fair
and balanced. But I think today a small group of journalists have
completely forgotten that and have become too eager to report on
the next scandal or break the next Watergate in the name of being
â€œwatchdogs.â€? Has this small minority become so focused
on uncovering government conspiracies or digging up dirty laundry
that they end up manufacturing their own stories and violating one
of the most sacred tenets of journalism, which is to tell the
truth? Have they become the monsters they once fought so hard to
destroy?
JASON FULPPlatte-Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Kearney, Mo.